reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker noticed irregularities with the absentee ballots. The ballot numbers were in sequence, which is unusual for mailed-in ballots. The speaker also discovered that the envelopes lacked a date and the ballots were all from the same area. The signatures were similar, and there were no date stamps. Additionally, the ballots were not showing up in the system and had to be entered manually. When the speaker questioned these issues, they were met with resistance from the supervisor. Despite wanting to stay in the room, the speaker chose not to challenge further.

I'm here to submit my ballot. Is this the deposit box? Yes, your ballot goes in here. It's not electronically counted; it will be secured with others. How can I be sure it's counted? Once it's in the locked box, it will be counted after 8 PM. The computer will read the cards, provided they are filled out correctly. There was a problem with the machine earlier. Occasional jams can happen, but it's not frequent. Thanks for the help. Any other questions? The election board is next door. I think my ballot didn't work because I voted for Trump. Thank you.

The speaker shares their experience with a whistleblower who gave them four notes regarding ballot discrepancies. They describe witnessing ballots with different signatures being entered into the system and stacks of 50 ballots being put through tabulators multiple times. The speaker mentions the supervisors preventing them from getting closer to the tabulators and the issue of signing in but not out. They also mention the presence of only Biden's name on duplicated military ballots and express their belief that the election was fraudulent.

The speaker explains that when a ballot jams in the tabulating machines, an error message appears with the options to discard or recount. However, instead of following the correct procedure of discarding the entire batch and rescanning the already tabulated ones, they were repeatedly rescanning the jammed ballots without discarding them. This led to the ballots being counted 8 to 10 times, indicating a lack of understanding and confusion among the individuals involved.

The speaker expresses their intention to vote for Jason Shaw and confirms their ballot. They discuss the process of adjudication and admit to voting for someone who did not vote. The speaker, who is the election supervisor, mentions deciding to count only one candidate in the Trump and Biden race. They then express their preference for Biden and complete the ballot accordingly. They proceed to decide that a particular ballot should be left blank. The speaker confirms that they have scanned the same package multiple times. The transcript abruptly ends with the speaker mentioning having more to do.

There are two batches of votes being examined. The speaker points out that there are identical markings on different ballots, suggesting duplication. They show examples of the same markings and even a dot in the same spot. The speaker mentions having a total of 62 images, but didn't go through all of them. The numbers of the batches are not remembered, but it is clear that duplicate ballots were scanned multiple times.

An observer in the duplication room witnessed the preparation of a new ballot because the original was soiled. The observer read a Trump Republican ballot to their Democratic partner. When the partner entered it into the system, the ballot defaulted to a Biden Democratic ballot on the screen. This was reported to supervisors, and others claimed to have witnessed the same manipulation. No corrective action was communicated. The next day, the observer was scolded for saying the machines were not working correctly and was told not to discuss anything. Many people were threatened with being removed from the room or not being allowed to work there again if they spoke out. The observer believes it is their duty to speak the truth.

The speaker describes irregularities observed in absentee/mail-in ballots. They claim that the ballot numbers and the last names on the ballots were in sequence, which should not happen with mail-in ballots because those ballots are supposed to arrive at different times and cannot be sequential like 2-2-3-2 next to 2-2-3-3. This pattern triggered the speaker’s concern, leading them to think something was wrong. The speaker states they began noticing that the numbers were almost adjacent to each other, with one hovering around the middle. This prompted them to raise questions about the process. They then asked the supervisor for clarification, but the supervisor reacted angrily, saying, “you’re not letting us do our job. You’re disturbing us.” Feeling hesitant to push the issue further for fear of being kicked out and wanting to stay in the room due to a lack of other observers, the speaker chose not to challenge the process more than they already had. They allege that the sequence of ballot numbers came from the same area, specifically Goddard Street in Downtown Detroit, and that the signatures on those ballots were all alike. The speaker notes several additional anomalies: envelopes had no date stamp, only the word “November 2020” without a more specific date, and there was no second or third numbering visible. They observed that none of these ballots were coming up in the voting system; instead, they were being entered manually. The speaker claims that the poll book or the system would not reflect these details, implying that the ballots were processed outside the normal electronic recordkeeping. In summary, the speaker alleges a pattern of sequential ballot numbers and similar signatures associated with absentee ballots from a single street area, envelopes without proper dating, and manual entry into the system rather than through standard digital processing, with the supervisor resisting questions about these irregularities.

The speaker discusses an incident where there were errors in the vote count for Biden and Trump. They explain that the voting machine generated a high number of errors, which were then sent for adjudication. The rate of ballots needing adjudication was 68%, much higher than the federal allowable rate of 1 in 125,000. The speaker suggests that this program is designed to generate errors and manipulate votes. They also mention that on November 4th, all system files related to adjudication were deleted. This is seen as a significant issue.

A poll worker states that while observing the duplication of a spoiled ballot, she read a Trump Republican ballot to her partner, but the system defaulted to a Biden Democratic ballot when entered. She and others reported witnessing the same manipulation to supervisors. The witness says she was scolded for suggesting the machines were not working correctly and was told not to discuss what was happening. She also claims many people were threatened with removal from the room or job if they spoke out. She believes it is her duty to speak the truth.

Excuse me, how many ballots are you turning in? You're only allowed to submit one ballot per person. Do you have an affidavit for all those? It's the post office. That seems suspicious. Someone is dropping off a large number of ballots in Northampton County right after the office has closed.

The speaker discusses the process of adjudication for a batch of votes. They mention a double vote and express uncertainty about whether completing the adjudication will accept both candidates or reject the vote altogether. They also mention the option to hide the box and express uncertainty about whether the check mark was accepted. The speaker then decides to vote for Jason Shaw and completes the process.

In the duplication room, the speaker and their partner observed a new ballot being prepared because the original one was damaged. They read a Trump Republican ballot, but it automatically changed to a Biden Democratic ballot on the screen. They reported this manipulation to the supervisors, but were not informed of any corrective action. The next day, the speaker was scolded by a supervisor for questioning the machines. They were told not to discuss the issue, as others had been threatened with suppression and removal from the room. The speaker believes it is their duty to speak the truth.

The speaker expresses frustration about a blank ballot that was not voted on. They mention being able to stop adjudication and scan and adjudicate all ballots, including the blank one. Misty asks if a ballot can be scanned more than once, and the speaker confirms that they have done it. They explain that they kept scanning the same batches of ballots. The speaker mentions that they have set the system to handle ambiguous marks and overvotes, but it should also handle blank ballots. They scan a blank ballot and accept it into the system, noting that the system does not know who touched the ballots during adjudication.

The speaker observed that when people received Republican straight ticket ballots, they often ignored them or circled Donald Trump's name and put them back in the envelope. The speaker noticed USPS boxes filled with these ballots on the floor. They questioned the legitimacy of the process, as it seemed impossible to count all the votes accurately. The speaker mentioned that only a small number of ballots were counted at a time, with each pile containing no more than five ballots. They expressed concern about the removal of many Trump vote ballots.

The speaker expresses frustration about a blank ballot that was not voted on. They mention being able to stop adjudication and scan and adjudicate all ballots, including the blank one. Misty asks if a ballot can be scanned multiple times, and the speaker confirms they have done so. They mention not receiving any more ballots until about 1. The speaker explains that the system is set to handle ambiguous marks and overvotes, but they want to see if it can handle blank ballots as well. They scan the blank ballot, accept it into the system, and mention that the system does not know who touched the ballots during adjudication.

The speaker witnessed someone using correction tape inside a tabulator machine, which caused the ballots to get jammed. The tape was placed back in the machine after being peeled off. The speaker explained that if a ballot goes through the machine with the tape on it, the machine won't read anything, and the user can override it. The speaker also mentioned that the ballots had no numbers at the top, but they assumed the machine wouldn't read them and the user could manually input the ticket type. The person operating the machine repeatedly put the same set of 27 ballots in instead of separating them, resulting in an inaccurate count. The speaker explained that the machine doesn't have a way to detect if the same ballot has been inserted multiple times, as the sensor and reader are covered.

The discussion centers on moving forward with a ballot audit to obtain a count, despite concerns about a particular precinct. Speaker 0 emphasizes that without counts, progress is impossible and asserts that this moment is not the time for an investigation into the precinct. The goal is to complete the audit to determine how many ballots are present. Speaker 1 asks for clarification about whether there is additional focus or findings beyond the current audit. Speaker 0 reiterates the need to proceed with the audit and produce a tally of ballots, indicating that delaying is not an option at this point. A key point arises about how to handle multiple ballots that show the same signature. Speaker 0 and Speaker 2 acknowledge the concern and discuss that while the primary process is to complete the audit, there will be a method to account for these potentially problematic ballots. Speaker 2 suggests that an asterisk can be added to indicate that certain ballots share the same signature, and that those ballots will be separated out and counted in the work. Speaker 0 continues to stress that the precinct’s concerns are understood, but the immediate instruction is to finish the audit portion, not to conduct an investigation or to engage in counting beyond the audit. The immediate task is to produce a number for how many ballots were present at the start of counting and then proceed from there. Speaker 2 confirms that a number will be produced, though there is an acknowledgment that there may be questions about the validity of some ballots. Speaker 0 clarifies that the current process requires ballots to be put into the correct files and that presidential votes must be counted, while not engaging in separate, non-audit counting at this stage. Throughout, Speaker 0 reiterates the need to complete the audit portion first, to obtain the count, and then address any subsequent concerns or issues, including potential validity questions. The conversation closes with an acknowledgment that there may be issues with the precinct and that, once the audit is completed, they can move forward with the results while addressing the concerns that have been raised.

The speaker shares their experience with the election process, mentioning receiving four notes with incorrect dates. They describe witnessing three individuals entering ballots into the verified voter system, and one person, later identified as Jesse Jacobs, showing them a signature on a laptop screen that didn't match the signature on the ballot. The speaker also claims to have seen stacks of 50 ballots being put through tabulators multiple times. They mention the supervisors keeping them at a distance from the tabulators and not allowing them to get closer. The speaker notes that only Biden's name was selected on duplicated military ballots, with no down-ballot selections for Trump. They express their belief that the election was fraudulent.

This is the duplication room. I observed the preparation of a new ballot because the original was soiled and wouldn't go through the tabulators. I read a Trump Republican ballot, and when it was entered, the system defaulted to a Biden Democratic ballot. We reported this to supervisors, and others confirmed they witnessed similar issues. We were not informed of any corrective actions taken. The next day, the supervisor reprimanded me for raising concerns about the machines, and I was told I could not discuss the situation. Many were threatened with being removed from the room if they spoke up. I feel it is my duty to share the truth.

The speakers discuss the flow of ballots and the involvement of a company called Runback. Trucks delivering ballots arrived on the third, then the fourth, and the fifth, continuing for days. The last day of the speaker’s involvement was the tenth, and trucks were still coming in. The ballots were coming from Runback, a company that does high‑speed scanning and printing of duplications, and the speaker mentions military ballots being produced or processed by Runback, though there is uncertainty about exactly what Runback was doing. When asked whether the ballots were printed or scanned off-site, the speaker is unsure. It is stated that all the high‑speed scanning occurs at Runback, and that those ballots go to Runback. There were no observers at Runback, and the speaker had not been called to work there. The question is raised about whether the scanning was done on-site at the Maricopa County structure, but the response indicates that scanning was not on-site and occurred at Runback where there are very high‑speed scanners. The question of whether Dominion equipment was involved is addressed: the ballots being scanned were not related to Dominion. The purpose of scanning the ballots in advance of tabulation on Dominion equipment is then explained: they were duplications of ballots that would not read through the tabulation machines, specifically ballots that came in from military and overseas. However, the speaker notes there were more ballots than just those, with trays of ballots being brought in, and uncertainty remains about where the rest were coming from. The speaker suggests that the remaining questions about the sources of these ballots should be answered by the county employees. In summary, the discussion centers on: a sequence of ballot deliveries over several days; Runback handling high‑speed scanning and duplications off-site; uncertainty about whether ballots were printed or scanned and by whom; the absence of observers at Runback; scanners used were not Dominion; the purpose of off-site scanning was to duplicate ballots that wouldn’t read through the tabulation machines, including military and overseas ballots; and unresolved questions about the origin of additional ballots, which require explanation from county staff. The exchange ends with a note that the remaining questions about the ballots’ origins are for the county employees to explain.

The speaker describes observing absentee/mail-in ballots and recording details from the ballots. They wrote down the ballot numbers and the last names of the person named on each ballot. The ballots appeared to be in sequence, which, according to the speaker, should not happen with mail-in ballots, since mail-in ballots come in at different times and numbers. The speaker recalls that when they noticed the numbers were almost next to each other—one in the middle, then another—they became suspicious. The speaker asked the supervisor about this, noting there was not even a date on the envelopes. The envelopes were marked November 2020, but there was no second number or other identifying date visible. When the speaker inquired about the date on a specific envelope, the response was hostile: the supervisors became angry and told them they were not letting them do their job and that the speaker was disturbing them. To avoid being kicked out, the speaker and the others in the room chose not to challenge the process further, since they did not want to be removed and there were only a few people present. The speaker also observed that the sequence of ballot numbers all originated from the same area—Guarded Street in Downtown Detroit. The ballots’ signatures looked alike, and none of the envelopes had dates stamped on them. The envelopes appeared to be missing a second or third date, or any date, and none of the ballots were appearing in the voting system. Additionally, the speaker notes that these ballots were being entered manually, and they asserted that none of these details would be present in the poll book or the system. The overall implication is that there was irregularity in the handling of these absentee ballots, with sequential numbers, indistinct dates, signatures resembling each other, and manual entry outside the expected process, raising concerns about whether the ballots were being processed consistent with standard procedures.

In the duplication room, the speaker witnessed a new ballot being prepared because the original one was damaged. However, when a Trump Republican ballot was entered into the system, it automatically switched to a Biden Democratic ballot. The speaker reported this manipulation to the supervisors, but it is unclear if any action was taken. The next day, the speaker was scolded by a supervisor for questioning the machines' accuracy and was warned not to discuss the issue. The speaker believes it is their duty to speak the truth.

The election supervisor wants to vote for Jason Shaw. During adjudication, the supervisor states they want to vote for Biden, overriding the original marks on a ballot. The supervisor decides someone "don't deserve no votes" and chooses not to count votes on that ballot. The supervisor then declares another ballot should be blank. The supervisor admits to scanning the same batches of ballots repeatedly.

The speaker discusses the concept of overvoting, which occurs when multiple parties are voted for in a section where only one vote is allowed. They mention scanning a new batch of ballots and scanning them again, even though they have already been scanned once. The speaker remarks that all the ballots went through the system without any apparent issues. They then mention going back to RTR.